D Nalini v. D
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application. The court held that the applicant, having sold the property to the borrower, is a mere third party with no right, title, or interest. She failed to challenge the possession notice within the statutory period of 45 days under Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act.
What did the court decide?
The present Securitization Application (SA No. 837/2024) is dismissed; interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
What the court decided
SA No.837/2024
08.04.2026
1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 08th day of April, 2026
Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer
SA No. 837 of 2024
Mrs. D. Nalini, W/o Mr. R. Dharani, Residing at Plot No.16B, Lakshmi Nagar, Mugalivakkam Village, Mugalivakkam, Porur, Chennai – 600 125.
…Applicant
-Vs-
- The Authorised Officer – Chief Manager, Mr. P.S. Sundaravadanan
Karur Vysya Bank,
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a third party who sold the mortgaged property and failed to challenge the possession notice can file a securitization application.
Whether the applicant can claim any right, title, or interest over the property sold by her and her husband.
Whether the applicant is eligible to challenge the Section 14 order dated 17.05.2024.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Mrs. D. Nalini
- respondent
Karur Vysya Bank
- respondent
Mr. K. Prabhakaran
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court